Duncan Coutts <duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk> writes:
> On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 14:37 +0000, Alistair Bayley wrote:
>> As for a wider discussion, I'm all for it, but I believe the impact of
>> this change on existing code should be negligible (pending further
>> testing, of course), so I'm not sure if we're going to get much
>> interest. I'm trying to solve the problem in a way that's useful for
>> me now, and, I hope, in a way that's useful for others. I get the
>> impression that I'm a pretty small minority in trying to generate
>> Haddock docs from .lhs source.
>> You are, but that's only because it doesn't currently work :-).
I would certainly have written my pedantic html library
using literate style if Haddock had worked for it without
pain.
> In particular I'd like to know how well it works for Jon Fairbairn who
> has .lhs code that uses haddock markup and he uses a little
> pre-processor to convert it.
(I didn't want to have to include that preprocessor with the
library, so used illiterate Haskell instead).
While I have a fair bit of literate Haskell, hardly any of
it uses Haddock, so I don't think I can supply a useful
amount of data here as it would take me so little time to
convert it to whatever form you end up with. Thanks for
asking, though.
--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn at cl.cam.ac.uk